NATURE|Vol 451|17 January 2008|doi:10.
1038/nature06582 YEAR OF PLANET EARTH FEATURE
A planetary perspective on the deep Earth
David J. Stevenson
Earth’s composition, evolution and structure are in part a legacy of provenance (where it happened to form)
and chance (the stochastics of that formation).
Earth is an engine, tending to obliterate some of the evidence of events
that are distant in time, but a memory is retained in its chemistry,
its isotopes, the presence of the Moon, perhaps also in geophysical
observables such as the temperature of the core and the nature of the
mantle immediately above the core, and maybe even in the existence
of plate tectonics and life. The remarkable growth in the study and
understanding of Earth has happened in parallel with a spectacular era
of planetary exploration, relevant astronomical discoveries and com-
putational and theoretical advances, all of which help us to place Earth
and its interior in a perspective that integrates the Earth sciences with
extraterrestrial studies and basic sciences such as condensed-matter
physics. However, progress on the biggest challenges in understand-
ing the deep Earth continues to rely mainly on looking down rather
than looking up.
A planetary perspective
Earth is a planet — one of many. There is nothing particularly remark-
able about our home, except perhaps that it is suitable for life like us
— arguably a tautology. It happens to be the largest of its type in the
Solar System, but as there are only three others of the terrestrial type
(Mercury, Venus and Mars) this is not particularly significant. Among
planets in general, it is small.
In the past decade, we have seen an astonishing explosion in our
catalogue of planets outside the Solar System to about 250 so far
(see the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, http://exoplanet.eu/
catalog.php). These are mostly planets that we suspect are like Jupiter,
very different from Earth. But as time goes on and detection meth-
ods improve, we can expect to find bodies that are Earth-like at least
to the extent of being made predominantly of rock and iron, the
primary constituents of our planet. Some would claim we might already
be finding such bodies1, initially those that are more massive than
Earth.
If planets were like atoms or molecules, or even crystals, we could
speak of their characteristics (their DNA, so to speak) in a very compact
way, just as a handbook might list the properties of a material. Planets
are richer, more complex and more resistant to reductionist thinking.
Genetics is the science of heredity and variation in biological systems.
By analogy, we can speak of the genetics of a planet such as Earth, while
also acknowledging that environment has a role in its evolution and
its current state.
Cosmologists are familiar with thinking about time logarithmically:
a lot happened in a very short period of time back near the Big Bang.
To some extent, it helps to think about planet formation in a similar
way (Fig. 1). The events that defined Earth’s formation and the initial
conditions for its subsequent evolution are squeezed into an epoch that
may have already been over within 100 million years of the formation
of the Solar System. In this epoch more happened inside Earth and
more energy was dissipated from within the planet than throughout all
of subsequent geological time. We have no direct geological record of
this earliest epoch in the form of rocks and must rely instead on other
sources of evidence.
Making planets
Our understanding of planet formation involves four major inputs:
astronomical observations of places where planetary systems may cur-
rently be forming, the study of meteorites that formed even before the
epoch in which the Solar System’s planets formed, study of the planets
themselves (Earth among them), and theoretical modelling. None of
these is very complete or satisfying. The astronomical observations
tell us about disks and dust and only indirectly about possible planets,
the meteorites come from parent bodies that were probably always in
orbits beyond Mars and are not necessarily representative of Earth’s
building blocks, Earth itself is good at concealing its history (through
frequent surface rejuvenation), and theory is often either too permis-
sive (many adjustable parameters) or falls short of a correct description
of process. Even so, a picture emerges that has undergone considerable
testing and refinement in recent years.
Current models of planetary formation2–6 have had some success in
explaining observations and have the following features. Almost 4.6
billion years ago, an interstellar cloud of gas and dust collapsed under
the action of gravity. Angular momentum guaranteed that the collapse
would be into a disk around the forming star (the Sun) rather than
merely into the Sun alone. This disk had a radius of perhaps 50 astro-
nomical units (au), where 1 au is the distance between Earth and the
Sun. Almost all the mass of this disk was outwards of the eventual orbit
of Earth. The particular mix of elements was nothing unusual, having
been set by nucleosynthesis for the heavy elements and the outcome of
the Big Bang for the lightest elements. Conversion of the gravitational
energy of infall into heat assured that temperatures would be high in
the inner part of the disk, sufficient to vaporize much of the infalling
dust. Subsequent cooling allowed the formation of dust embedded in
the primarily hydrogen gas. Through gentle collisions, these particles
aggregated into larger particles up to a centimetre or more in size.
Meteoritic evidence strongly indicates the formation of larger
‘planetesimals’ that were kilometres or more in size, on a timescale
of less than a million years. This process is poorly understood:
planetesimals may have arisen through gentle collision and sticking of
smaller grains or they may have arisen through gravitational instabili-
ties in the disk. Such processes are presumed to have occurred through-
out the Solar System. The timing of formation of these bodies is well
established at around 4,567 million years ago, and their collapse from
the interstellar medium can only have occurred a million years or less
before this because of evidence for the presence of short-lived radioac-
tive elements. This precisely determined date therefore well defines the
origin of the Solar System.
Almost a billion bodies 10 km in diameter would be needed to make
an Earth. However, it is not thought likely that planetesimals were
the actual building blocks of Earth. A dense swarm of such bodies in
nearly circular low-inclination orbits is gravitationally unstable on a
short timescale. In less than a million years, much larger bodies (‘plan-
etary embryos’) are formed that are Moon- to Mars-sized. These arise
because of gravitational focusing of impacts between bodies with low
relative velocity. Outward from the asteroid belt, these embryos may
261
YEAR OF PLANET EARTH FEATURE
• Jupiter exists
• Planetesimals form • Solar nebula eliminated
Collapse of an • Moon-to-Mars-sized • Substantial proto-Earth
interstellar cloud to embryos form rapidly (more than 50% of final
form the solar nebula after this mass) might already exist
1 Myr 10 Myr
Figure 1 | A logarithmic view of the time of planetary formation. The left
end corresponds to the initiation of a collapse to form the solar nebula, and
is close to 4,567 million years ago. Much happened in the 1 to 100 million
exceed Earth in mass, but in the terrestrial zone they are still well short
of Earth’s final mass. This means we must build Earth from a modest
number (100 or fewer) of these embryos, but adding in a sprinkling
of planetesimals. The aggregation of embryos to even bigger bodies
takes far longer than their formation, extending from tens of mil-
lions of years to as much as 100 million years, because it requires the
excitation of eccentric orbits so that the embryos have an opportunity
to collide3–5.
Earth and its companion terrestrial planets are a tiny part of the
Solar System and it should come as no surprise that the presence of the
giant planets, especially Jupiter, the most massive and closest of these to
Earth, would have a role in Earth’s formation. Jupiter must have formed
while the hydrogen-dominated gas of the solar nebula was mostly still
present6, and astronomical observations suggest that the gas may have
been present in sufficient abundance for about 5 million years at most.
We could perhaps imagine that the formation of Earth postdated the
formation of Jupiter, and some models are of this kind. Realistically, a
full understanding of Earth’s formation probably requires a full under-
standing of Jupiter’s formation. Jupiter is enriched in heavy elements
relative to the Sun, and some part of that enrichment is likely to be
present as a core. It is likely, although not certain, that this core was
formed first, with the gas then placed on top. But whichever story is
correct, the formation of Jupiter involves much more than the physics
involved in building bodies such as Earth because we must understand
gas accretion as well as the accretion of solids. At present, this under-
standing is incomplete. Models of Earth accretion are in many ways
much more detailed than models of giant-planet formation, but they
are contingent on understanding Jupiter.
Planetary embryology
We have evidence about some of the planetesimals because they are the
presumed source of most meteorites, but the much larger embryos have
not left direct evidence of their existence. Nonetheless, it is likely that
their properties are important for understanding Earth. They formed
so quickly that they probably partly melted, owing to the presence of
the short-lived radioactive isotope 26Al. They may even have been big
enough to undergo melting by the conversion of gravitational energy
of formation into heat. Partial melting can be expected to cause the
separation of a liquid iron alloy from the partly molten silicate mantle,
and these embryos may even have had atmospheres. In short, they are
planets with iron cores, short-lived but possessing properties derived
from planetary processes rather than the properties of the precursor
planetesimals. These differences from planetesimals can arise in a
number of ways: ingassing (the incorporation of solar nebula gas, should
the surface of the embryo be molten), the role of pressure (the mineral
phases within the embryo and its crust can be different from those in
a low-pressure planetesimal because of self-gravity), and the loss of
material by escape (either because of high temperatures or through
collisions). Close encounters, tidal disruption and the creation of debris
during collisions are processes that are not currently well incorporated
into models of planet formation.
The embryos responsible for forming Earth were not — indeed could
not have been — built from planetesimals that formed at 1 au, because
the coalescence of the embryos necessarily requires their scattering
around the inner part of the Solar System3–5. It is therefore incorrect to
think of Earth’s provenance and composition as being precisely defined,
262
NATURE|Vol 451|17 January 2008
• Last giant impact occurs,
plausibly lunar forming • Life originates
• Earth’s surface rapidly • Rock record (cratons)
cools after this impact develops
100 Myr 1,000 Myr Present
years (Myr) immediately after this, and the logarithmic scale correctly
emphasizes the importance of this 100-Myr period, despite the shortness of
this period compared with Earth’s age.
and different from, say, those of Venus. On the other hand, some dif-
ferences are expected purely by chance and, importantly, it is thought
unlikely that any of the Earth-forming embryos formed out at loca-
tions where water ice could condense. Indeed, Earth is relatively dry,
at least for the water inventory that we can measure (the oceans and
upper mantle), and our water may have arisen through water-bear-
ing planetesimals coming from greater distances rather than through
water incorporated in the primary embryos. This remains somewhat
controversial, and one of the goals of Earth science is to get a better
understanding of Earth’s complete water budget.
Giant impacts and lunar formation
The likely dominance of the embryos as building-blocks for Earth implies
the predominance of giant impacts. We should not think of Earth’s
formation as the steady accumulation of mass but rather as a series of
infrequent, highly traumatic events separated by periods of cooling and
healing. The largest, and possibly the last, of these events is thought to
have been responsible for the formation of the Moon7,8 (Fig. 2). Recent
isotopic evidence9 now dates this event at as a much as 100 million years
after the origin of the Solar System. Many features of the event would
also apply to earlier non-lunar-forming events, except that those would
have been less extreme. The impact origin of the Moon was once a con-
troversial idea, but it has gradually been accepted for two reasons: the
lack of a realistic alternative, and growing evidence for its compatibility
with the data — isotopic data in particular. Particularly importantly, it
is thought to set the stage for Earth’s subsequent evolution.
The lunar-forming collision plausibly involved the oblique impact
of a Mars-mass planetary embryo (10% of Earth’s mass) with the ~90%
complete Earth. The impact velocity would probably have been domi-
nated by the infall into the mutual gravity field, and most of this energy
would have been converted into heat. Unlike energy, angular momen-
tum is much more nearly conserved throughout geological time, and
this kind of impact explains well the current angular momentum of
the Earth–Moon system. The mean temperature rise of Earth result-
ing from this collision can be estimated as ∆T ≈ 0.1GM/RCp ≈ 4,000 K,
where G is the gravitational constant, M and R are Earth’s mass and
radius, respectively, and Cp is the specific heat of rock. Previous impacts
would have heated Earth up to a hot, nearly isentropic state (a state in
which entropy is nearly uniform with depth) close to, or partly in excess
of, melting. Convective cooling below the freezing point is inefficient,
so the state immediately before impact is hot, except perhaps right at
the surface.
We expect that the impact heating would have been uneven because
the various parts of Earth would be shocked to differing extents, but
the immediate post-giant-impact state would relax to a very hot con-
figuration, in which all or most of the rock and iron is in molten form
and some silicate (perhaps even tens of per cent) is in vapour form. In
most simulations of this kind of impact, a disk forms, derived mostly
from the impacting body. For the expected radiating surface area and
radiating temperature (~2,000 K), the cooling time to remove about half
of the impact energy is around 1,000 years, perhaps somewhat shorter
for the disk. This is a very short period relative to the time between
major collisions, but a very important one. During this short period,
the Moon forms, most of the core of the projectile merges with the core
of the proto-Earth, some of the pre-existing Earth’s atmosphere may be
blown off, and a significant part of the deep, initially molten, mantle
NATURE|Vol 451|17 January 2008
of the Earth will freeze without having the opportunity to differentiate
(because the crystals are advected vigorously by the turbulent convec-
tive motions that accompany the cooling).
The Moon probably did not form immediately after the giant impact,
even though orbital times for material placed about Earth are less than
a day. Instead, it seems to be necessary to wait for hundreds to thou-
sands of years, the timescale of disk cooling, as it is thought likely that
the Moon did form completely molten. For reasons not fully under-
stood, the need to cool the disk is of greater importance than the shorter
timescales of dynamical evolution. Perhaps lunar formation should not
be thought of as disconnected from the provenance and evolution of the
deep Earth. The reason is that, after the giant impact, some exchange
of material may have taken place between Earth and the disk, aided by
the vigorous convection of both the liquid and vapour parts of each and
the presence of a common silicate atmosphere. This picture of rapid
exchange makes the disk more Earth-like, rather than like the projec-
tile that was responsible for its formation. The picture was originally
motivated by a desire to understand the remarkable similarity of Earth
and Moon oxygen isotopes8 but also finds support in tungsten9 and
possibly silicon10 isotopic evidence. However, we do not yet have a fully
integrated model of lunar formation that is dynamically satisfactory as
well as chemically acceptable.
Core formation
The core-formation events (one event per giant impact) are particularly
important because core formation is the biggest differentiation process
of Earth: it involves one-third of Earth’s mass and a large energy release,
because the iron is about twice as dense as the silicates. To a substantial
extent, it also defines the composition of Earth’s mantle. In the imme-
diate aftermath of a giant impact, we expect a substantial part of the
core of the projectile to be emulsified with the molten mantle of the
pre-impact proto-Earth. The core and mantle materials are thought to
be immiscible (like water and oil) despite the very high temperatures,
perhaps as high as 10,000 K for some of the material. If the material is
mixed down to a small scale (perhaps even to the point where there are
centimetre-sized droplets of iron immersed in the liquid silicate) then
the iron and silicate can chemically and thermally equilibrate at high
temperature and pressure (Fig. 3a). The composition of the core and
the iron content of the mantle were presumably set during these equili-
bration episodes. The silicon and hydrogen contents of the mantle may
also be affected by this equilibration, as both are soluble in iron at high
pressure and temperature. These elements are particularly significant:
silicon content affects the mineralogy of Earth’s mantle, and the fate
of hydrogen may have much to say about the total water inventory of
Earth at this early epoch and the flow of mantle rocks. However, much
of Earth’s water may have been delivered later.
It is likely that some of the projectile iron is not mixed down to the
smallest scales but instead finds its way to the core just hours after
the impact (Fig. 3b). This iron will not equilibrate, either thermally
or chemically, and it thus carries a memory of previous core-forming
events at earlier times in smaller bodies (the embryos discussed earlier).
The emerging picture is a complex one in which we should not expect
the core or mantle of Earth to have a simple chemical relationship that
involves the last equilibration at a particular pressure and temperature,
but rather to have been formed under a range of thermodynamic condi-
tions involving a number of significant events at different times2,11.
Earth’s atmosphere at the time of a giant impact might have been
mostly steam and carbon dioxide (CO2) — probably both were impor-
tant. It is possible, but not certain, that a large part of the atmosphere was
blown away immediately after the giant impact. Water vapour is, however,
much more soluble than CO2 in magma, so that even if the atmosphere
were ejected into space, outgassing from the underlying magma ocean
would replenish much of it. An important feature of water vapour is that
it has a strong greenhouse effect, and that may have allowed the reten-
tion of an underlying magma ocean, even for the long periods between
giant impacts. However, this type of atmosphere can rain out if there is
insufficient energy supplied to its base (sunlight alone is insufficient) and,
YEAR OF PLANET EARTH FEATURE
as a consequence, any steam atmosphere may collapse on a geologically
short timescale, leading to an Earth surface that is actually cool (able to
have liquid water) even while the interior is very hot.
Mantle differentiation
The mantle of the post-giant impact Earth will cool very fast at first12,
limited only by the black-body radiation that can escape from the top of
the transient (initially silicate vapour) atmosphere. The thermal structure
of the mantle is expected to be close to isentropic because that is the state
of neutral buoyancy and therefore the state preferred by convection, pro-
vided that viscosity is low. The nature of the freezing within this convect-
ing state is of great importance and is thermodynamically determined.
Many materials have the property that if they are squeezed isentropically,
they undergo freezing even as they get hotter. Equivalently, they melt if
they are decompressed isentropically from a frozen but hot, high-pressure
state. The former correctly describes the freezing of Earth’s solid inner
core (the hottest place in Earth, yet frozen) whereas the latter correctly
describes the melting responsible for the generation of basaltic magma,
the dominant volcanism on Earth and most voluminously expressed at
the low mantle pressures immediately beneath mid-ocean ridges. Recent
work13,14 suggests that this picture may not apply for the deeper part of
Earth’s mantle, so that freezing may begin at mid-depths.
Even so, there will eventually come a point (perhaps as soon as a few
thousand years) after a giant impact when the bottom part of the mantle
a
Lunar-forming giant impact
Blobs of iron settling
to core
b
Silicate vapour
atmosphere
Magma disk
Core
Radiative cooling
Partly
solidified mantle
c
Rest of disk falls
Core
back on Earth
Newly formed
Moon, mostly or
partly molten
Figure 2 | The effect on Earth of the giant impact that formed the Moon.
a, A giant planetary embryo collides with the nearly complete Earth. b, A
magma disk is in orbit about Earth, while blobs of iron from the planetary
embryo settle down through the mantle to join the existing core. c, The
outermost part of the magma disk coalesces to form the Moon as the result
of radioactive cooling, while the rest falls back to Earth. Inside Earth, the
mantle nearest the core has partly solidified, and the mantle might acquire
a layered structure.
263
YEAR OF PLANET EARTH FEATURE
a b
Iron
droplets
Metal ‘pond’
Metal
Silicate diapir Silicate
liquidus
Core
is mostly frozen. A very important question then arises: does the inter-
stitial melt of this two-phase medium move up or move down under
the action of gravity? It is very unlikely to be immobile. It is likely that it
goes down (most probably because it is richer in iron than the coexist-
ing solid), but in either case the mantle will differentiate internally into
a layered structure (Fig. 4). This does not necessarily mean that Earth
developed a primordial layering that has been preserved throughout
geological time and is perhaps present still as part of the complex struc-
ture observed at the base of the mantle by seismologists and given by
them the unromantic name of Dʹʹ (see page 269). An early differentiation
event for the silicate portion of Earth is favoured by some geochemists15,
although, interestingly, it may have been earlier and it may have involved
the formation of a primordial crust. It could perhaps be the cumulative
consequence of giant impact events, a rare example of an Earth memory
that even pre-dates the last giant impact.
The ‘average’ Earth surface environment during accretion may
not have been very hot, even though there were undoubtedly short
periods of time during which it was so hot that rocks were vaporized.
These traumatic events reset the clock for subsequent evolution and
emphasize the importance of the last such global event. Soon after the
last global traumatic event, it may even be possible to have had rocks
that survived throughout subsequent Earth history. Certainly, zircons
— tiny, very resistant parts of rocks — have been dated back to ~4.4 bil-
lion years16, and it is not unreasonable to expect zircon discoveries that
date back to within a few hundred million years of the lunar-forming
impact. Zircons are not the same as hand specimens and rocks that can
be studied in context (an intact structure, such as a surviving craton),
but the gap is closing between the geological record as usually defined
and the events that can only be dated through gross isotopic signals for
Earth as a whole.
Core memory
The composition of Earth’s core is different from pure iron–nickel and
this is presumably because of the modest solubility of other elements,
especially oxygen, silicon and sulphur. The simplest view of Earth’s
core is that it is a hot fluid cooled from above. Significantly, Earth’s core
has superheat: it is hotter than the temperature it would have been if
liquid iron alloy coexisting with upper to mid-mantle silicates had sunk
isentropically to the core. We can estimate this superheat by knowing
the temperature at which iron alloys freeze at the known pressure of
Earth near its centre and by the seismological determination of the size
of its inner core. This superheat is currently about 1,000 K or so, and
264
NATURE|Vol 451|17 January 2008
Figure 3 | Two contrasting
views of what might have
happened during core
formation. a, There is a
magma ocean bounded
below by a mostly
solid lower region: the
dispersed iron aggregates
before descending to
the core. b, Some of the
iron from the core of the
Completely projectile responsible
molten for a giant impact is
mantle imperfectly mixed and
descends to the core
Unequilibrated on a short timescale as
iron blobs distorted blobs hundreds
of kilometres in diameter,
without equilibration
with the mantle.
Core
may initially have been in excess of 2,000 K. Unlike the mantle, the core
cannot lose energy directly to the surface or to space and it is therefore
likely that part of this superheat is a memory of the primordial Earth and
may be telling us something about the specific processes responsible for
core formation. Loss of primordial heat, together with the latent heat
released as the inner core freezes, is potentially sufficient to maintain
convection in the outer core over geological time, although even this is in
some doubt given currently favoured values of the thermal conductivity
of the core. In addition, buoyancy can be provided by the exclusion of
part of the light elements from the inner core or perhaps from material
exsolving from the outer core and attaching itself to the mantle.
Earth’s magnetic field is generated by a dynamo: vigorous convection in
the liquid, electrically conducting, outer core amplifies the existing mag-
netic field and thereby balances the tendency of the electrical current and
associated fields to undergo decay. It is possible that these energy sources
were insufficient to generate Earth’s magnetic field even for the period
when we know it must have existed17. A modest amount of radiogenic heat,
most plausibly from the decay of 40K, is a suggested solution to the short-
fall. The experimental support for this is equivocal, but given the possibly
high temperatures for part of the core-forming materials, it may be more
difficult to keep things out of the core (that is, to avoid the core becoming
too low in density) than to get them in! The amount of potassium needed
would be modest and so it might not be apparent as a marked depletion of
potassium in Earth’s mantle relative to elements of similar volatility. The
ability of Earth to generate a magnetic field may also be linked to the pres-
ence of an efficient mechanism for eliminating heat through the planet’s
surface. Plate tectonics is a particularly efficient mechanism.
Plate tectonics and life
We understand why Earth’s mantle convects: there is no alternative mech-
anism for eliminating heat. However, we do not understand why Earth
has plate tectonics. It is sometimes described as merely a property of the
particular form that mantle convection takes on our planet, but this begs
the question. Plate tectonics is neither mandatory nor common (there is
no clear evidence of its existence on any other planet so far). Nonetheless,
many think its presence is deterministic: given the specific parameters
of present-day Earth, it is the behaviour expected, in the same sense that
a physicist setting up a convection experiment on a layer of fluid heated
from below need not be concerned about whether his chosen fluid was
once a vapour or a solid. Even in this point of view, the presence of plate
tectonics is history-dependent. For example, the amount and distribution
of water may be important, as it is well established that water in rocks
NATURE|Vol 451|17 January 2008
• Dense suspension, vigorously
convecting
• Might be well mixed
• Much higher viscosity, melt
percolative regime
• Melt–solid differentiation?
• High-density material
might accumulate at the base
Core
• Iron-rich melt might descend
Figure 4 | Mantle cooling and differentiation during the later stages of a
magma ocean. As the magma of the mantle cools, a stage is eventually
reached at which dense iron-rich interstitial liquid (red) percolates through
the solid matrix (blue) to accumulate just above the core.
has a major effect on their melting properties and response to stress.
Earth’s water budget is likely to be dependent on its history. The surface
environment is profoundly influenced by the presence or absence of a
plate-tectonic cycle, and that environment is, in turn, influencing the
existence of life and is then affected by the presence of life. Everything
affects everything else: the development of life on Earth is not likely to be
disconnected from the composition of Earth’s core.
Where do we go from here?
The remarkable advances over recent years and decades have been
notable for their strongly interdisciplinary character, and some of this
advance has come about through thinking of Earth as a planet and relat-
ing it to the environment in which it formed. Even so, the biggest chal-
lenge seems to require looking inside the planet: we need to understand
better the phase relationships between Earth’s constituents, the way in
which mantle convection works and how to integrate this with plate
tectonics, the connection between the deep Earth and our ocean and
atmosphere, and the generation of Earth’s magnetic field. The origin
YEAR OF PLANET EARTH FEATURE
and development of life are also clearly questions for Earth science and
will resist compelling answers until we have better characterized the
thermodynamic, chemical and fluid dynamical environments. The deep
Earth is deeply significant and also deeply informative for Earth’s surface
and all of Earth science. ■
David J. Stevenson is in the Division of Geological and Planetary Science,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA.
1. Udry, S. et al. The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets — XI. Super-Earths
(5 and 8 Mӻ) in a 3-planet system. Astron. Astrophys. 469, L43–L47 (2007).
2. Halliday, A. N. & Wood, B. J. in Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 9 (ed. Schubert, G.) 13–50
(Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007).
3. Chambers, J. E. Planetary accretion in the inner Solar System. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 223,
241–252 (2004).
4. Raymond, S. N., Mandell, A. M. & Sigurdsson, S. Exotic Earths: Forming habitable worlds
with giant planet migration. Science 313, 1413–1416 (2006).
5. Ogihara, M., Ida, S. & Morbidelli, A. Accretion of terrestrial planets from oligarchs in a
turbulent disk. Icarus 188, 522–534 (2007).
6. Lissauer, J. J. & Stevenson, D. J. in Protostars and Planets V (eds Reipurth, B., Jewitt, D. &
Keil, K.) 591–606 (Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 2007).
7. Canup, R. M. Dynamics of lunar formation. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 42, 441–475
(2004).
8. Pahlevan, K. & Stevenson, D. J. Equilibration in the aftermath of the lunar-forming giant
impact. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 262, 438–449 (2007).
9. Touboul, M., Kleine, T., Bourdon, B., Palme, H. & Wieler, R. Late formation and prolonged
differentiation of the Moon inferred from W isotopes in lunar metals. Nature 450,
1201–1209 (2007).
10. Georg, R. B., Halliday, A. N., Schauble, E. A. & Reynolds, B. C. Silicon in the Earth’s core.
Nature 447, 1102–1106 (2007).
11. Rubie, D. C., Nimmo, F. & Melosh, H. J. in Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 9 (ed. Schubert, G.)
51–90 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007).
12. Solomatov, V. in Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 9 (ed. Schubert, G.) 91–119 (Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 2007).
13. Stixrude, L. & Karki, B. Structure and freezing of MgSiO3 liquid in Earth’s lower mantle.
Science 310, 297–299 (2005).
14. Mosenfelder, J. L., Asimow, P. D. & Ahrens, T. J. Thermodynamic properties of Mg2SiO4
liquid at ultra-high pressures from shock measurements to 200 GPa on forsterite and
wadsleyite. J. Geophys. Res. 112, B06208 (2007).
15. Boyet, M. & Carlson, R. W. Nd-142 evidence for early (> 4.53 Ga) global differentiation of
the silicate Earth. Science 309, 576–581 (2005).
16. Wilde, S. A., Valley, J. W., Peck, W. H. & Graham, C. M. Evidence from detrital zircons
for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago. Nature 409,
175–178 (2001).
17. Nimmo, F. in Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 9 (ed. Schubert, G.) 217–241 (Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2007).
Author Information Reprints and permissions information is available at
npg.nature.com/reprints. Correspondence should be addressed to the author
(djs@gps.caltech.edu).
265